Federal court shoots down Texas' voter ID law

Enrique Rangel

Thursday

Aug 30, 2012 at 10:33 PM

AUSTIN- For the second time this week and the third time in two months, the state of Texas has lost a major legal battle.

To the dismay of State Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Washington federal court ruled Thursday that a law requiring Texas voters show government-issued photo identification before casting a ballot is unconstitutional because it would be a burden for Texans who cannot easily get such documentation, mainly the poor and racial minorities.

"The State of Texas enacted a voter ID law that - at least to our knowledge - is the most stringent in the country," the three-judge panel said in its 56-page opinion.

"It imposes strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor, and racial minorities in Texas disproportionately likely to live in poverty," part of the opinion reads. "And crucially, the Texas Legislature defeated several amendments that could have made this a far closer case."

The ruling means that the signed voter registration certificate each of the 254 counties in the state issues to its registered voters is sufficient - at least for the Nov. 6 general election.

The photo requirement for future elections remains a question mark, at least for now, because as he warned in mid-July when the voter ID trial began, Abbott said he will appeal the lower court's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The Supreme Court of the United States has already upheld Voter ID laws as a constitutional method of ensuring integrity at the ballot box," Abbott said in a statement.

"Today's decision is wrong on the law and improperly prevents Texas from implementing the same type of ballot integrity safeguards that are employed by Georgia and Indiana - and were upheld by the Supreme Court," Abbott added. "The State will appeal this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, where we are confident we will prevail."

Gov. Rick Perry and legislative leaders were just as dismayed by the lower court's ruling. "Chalk up another victory for fraud," Perry said in a separate statement.

"Today, federal judges subverted the will of the people of Texas and undermined our effort to ensure fair and accurate elections," Perry said. "The Obama Administration's claim that it's a burden to present a photo ID to vote simply defies common sense."

"This is another example of why Texas still needs the Voting Rights Act," state Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, D-San Antonio, said in reference to the landmark legislation Congress approved in 1965 to protect the voting rights of racial minorities.

"Why don't we follow the Voting Rights Act instead of attacking it?" asked Martinez Fischer, chairman of the Mexican-American Legislative Caucus, a leading opponent of the overturned law.

It is hard to say whether the Supreme Court will accept Abbott's appeal, attorneys who fought or opposed the legislation said. But even if the high court takes the case, they feel they are on solid legal ground.

Moreover, although Abbott keeps saying that the Supreme Court has already upheld the voter ID laws in Georgia and Indiana, those laws are not as restrictive as the one in Texas, Martinez Fischer, who is also an attorney, stressed.

For instance, although Texas has more than 700,000 residents who lack legal identification, the state charges $22 for a birth certificate while Georgia and Indiana issues them for free, he said.

In addition, 81 counties, mostly rural, do not have a Texas Department of Public Safety office and residents of those areas cannot get state-issued photo identification where they live, Martinez Fischer said. Another 30 counties only open for an average of two days a week.

"If states are going to pass voter ID laws they need to be flexible so they don't leave anybody out in the cold," added Ian Vandewalker of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.

For Abbott and the state, Thursday's ruling is the third legal setback they suffer this summer.

On Tuesday, the same Washington court ruled that the redistricting maps the Legislature passed last year are also unconstitutional because they, too, violate the Voting Rights Act. Abbott said he would also appeal that ruling.

In addition, on June 29, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, another landmark legislation the Democratic-controlled of two years ago passed strictly along party lines.

Abbott and 25 other state attorneys general had asked the high court to overturn the legislation critics call Obamacare. However, five of the nine justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld it.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.